Ken Norton wrote:
> Yes, Bill, there is a real pinhole "lens" in the future for my OM system.
>
I got the impression Bill was talking about more than just a lens.
I'm nowhere near knowledgeable about pinhole image making. However, it
does seems to me from those images I've seen reproduced digitally on the
web that the results are somehow different and generally, to me,
'better' in some hard to describe way when they are from larger than
35mm film.
It seems to me to be the sort of subtle difference in tonality,
contrast, graduation, something(s), that you are generally more attuned
to than am I.
One thing I can imagine would make some difference is that the 'optimum'
pinhole opening for larger film is larger than that generally used for
35mm. The light going through the pinhole doesn't know how far it's
traveling or how big an image it is going to make. However, simple
physics says that the mix of strongly diffracted light and less
diffracted rays will be different with a different pinhole size. Also,
different wavelengths will be affected differently by hole size.
Also, the divergence between more and less diffracted rays will be
greater with a longer distance to the film/sensor. Looking at the
geometry in my head, it seems that the result could be slightly
different than capturing the image closer to the pinhole, then enlarging
it to the same size as the larger image further back.
This sort of fuzzy thinking is one thing that has so far kept me from
getting a pinhole for OM or EF mount.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|